Watching Fox News’ resident liberal Richard Fowler flail around in search of a valid point is always painful to watch. But watching him attempt to debate Megyn Kelly on the issue of free speech, is downright mortifying.

In an epic clash with Kelly, he found himself agreeing with Bill O’Reilly’s craven take on the issue – a take Kelly blasted as “fundamentally confused and wrong.”

“The relevant question is not ‘did those under attack say something offensive,'” Kelly declared. The relevant question is, “what do we want to do about a group that wants to kill us for exercising our constitutional rights.”

“Freedom of speech is an enumerated right that also comes with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press and the freedom of association,” Fowler intoned. “Muslims should be free to worship just like Christians are free to worship.”

“Freedom of speech comes with limits and this is a clear limit,” Fowler argued in search of a point.

“No it isn’t!” Megyn countered. “You are fundamentally confused and wrong and the Supreme Court has been very clear on this.”

She cited the Westboro Baptist Church case in which the court upheld their right to picket funerals of fallen soldiers in an 8-1 decision.

Fowler countered, “this is not about case law – this is about common sense,” totally contradicting his earlier “point” that some speech should be limited – which the always razor sharp Megyn called him out on.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” Fowler simpered. ” Why would you paint a picture of someone else’s God and laugh at it and expect them not to respond?”

Setting aside the fact that Fowler just made it obvious he doesn’t have the first clue what Muslims believe about Mohammed (hint – he’s not their God!) He also exposed himself as the craven hypocrite he is for piously pretending that he believes religion should never be made fun of. Can you see Richard Fowler passionately defending Catholics when “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” perform their blasphemous shtick?

A troupe of anti-clerical gay provocateurs who cross-dress as bizarre nuns to insult the church and conventional morality of all sorts, stage a “Hunky Jesus” competition in San Franscisco.

You know what? I know a lot of people who are offended by this. Should we insist that they cease and desist or face {{{the consequences}}}?

Let’s start by being clear that the show is offensive in the traditional sense of the word: Four-letter words; sex jokes; sacrilege. But it’s only offensive because it wants to offend you. Ultimately, it drops a dose of vulgar, ugly and comically juxtaposed reality on the absurdity of musical theater and the incongruities of one particular religion: Mormonism.

The two-and-a-half hour show is saddled with the schoolyard humor we’ve come to expect from the men who thought up Eric Cartman. It’s riddled with profanity and even manages to make “baptism” a dirty word. It’s not for pearl-clutchers or do-gooders.

Well, we’ll just have to add Richard Fowler to the ranks of pearl-clutchers and do-gooders, I guess. Because it doesn’t make sense!!!11!! Why would someone make fun of someone else’s God and laugh at it? Whoever heard of such a thing?!

But of course – Fowler is silent about these insults because the offended parties don’t threaten to murder people who insult them. This is a craven, despicable and unsupportable position to have – which is certainly to be expected among those on the left because they are consistently craven, despicable and wrong about everything. Bill O’Reilly should be ashamed and embarrassed to be on their side on such a basic and fundamental issue.

Kelly concluded by saying, “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in,” but Fowler whimpered in response,”I would live in an America where everybody accepts everybody and we don’t make fun of their respective gods…”

When Megyn suggested he “explain that to the jihadis,” the clearly delusional Fowler blurted out, “how we beat terrorism is with love, not hate.”

— Fowler is silent about these insults because the offended parties don’t threaten to murder people who insult them. —

This is the conventional explanation, and it’s often the right one, but there’s an alternative that should be considered as well: Fowler, a faithful Leftist, doesn’t care about those insults because he’s indifferent to them politically.

Remember always that to a Leftist, there is no such thing as a private sphere of life. Everything is grist for his politics, and his politics are resolutely totalitarian. Therefore, the only things that matter to him are those that allow him to advance his politics, whether affirmatively (i.e., by increasing the Left’s power and influence) or by doing damage to an opponent.

That dynamic explains much that the cowardice explanation doesn’t cover.

I’m surprised at the reaction and the statements from some of these people. Fowler is no shock, he is a dyed in the wool pathetic lib. B’ore is being B’ore a idiot. I was however surprised with the reactions from MacCallum and Laura Ingraham. Laura started agreeing with B’ore’s position but admitted Geller had the right to do it. A difference with no distinction. Then the DonALL Thump accusing someone of “inciting” something. What a joke! When has he never shot from the lip?

Several of them as journalist would be having a canary and a stroke if they were ever directed to “limit” their commentary and would be the first people to lay down their journal ID’s claiming the “rights of the press and freedom of speech”. Colleges and Universities now designate “Free Speech Zones” and limit any reasonable debate that they don’t agree with.

The left is the most “intolerant” people walking, they always try to limit speech they don’t agree with.

Note to all of them. . . . last time I checked none of the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution has any asterisks or footnotes limiting when they are acceptable or when it is not. The 1st Amendment protects all speech, especially the speech we don’t agree with or find offensive.